2011 (12) TMI 318

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeal was Rs. 76,330/- i.e. below Rs. 1 lac., contrary to the policy of Board in view f the Circular F. No. 279/126/98/ITJ, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Central Board of Direct Taxes New Delhi, dated 27.03.2000, considered in CIT vs. Camco Colour Co. 254 ITR 565 and such Circular is binding on the Revenue (C.C.E. vs. Dhiren Chemical Industries Ltd. 254 ITR 554 (SC)?   (ii). Whether the ITAT was correct not to consider that the word owner/ownership mentioned in section 54F of the act has the same meaning as that of section 22 of the I.T. Act and there is no requirement of Registration of Sale Deed as held in case of CIT vs. Poddar Cement Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (S.C.) and Jodhamal Kathiala (R.B.) vs. CIT (1971) 8....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d to as the Act). declaring income at Rs. 90,320/-. It came on record that the assessee had made investment in the construction of residential house No. A-8, Shivlok W.K.Road in Meerut jointly with his wife Usha Rani. The investment during the year in question was at Rs. 3,30,000/-. The matter was referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer who vide report dated 29th November, 1999 determined the cost of construction for the relevant period at Rs. 7,79,664/-as against Rs. 6,60,000/- disclosed by the assessee and his wife. The assessee has worked out long term capital gains on the sale of shares at Rs. 2,01,300/- which has been claimed to be exempt under section 54F of the Act on the ground that the amount has been invested in the constru....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... both the contentions. It has come to the conclusion that the memorandum of agreement is a sham document and no benefit can be derived.   We have hard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.N.Mahajan, learned Senior Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department.   Sri Suyash Agarwal learned counsel relying on the Board's circular dated 27th March, 2000 submitted that the Department could not have preferred an appeal before the Tribunal as the tax effect was less than one lac. However after scrutiny we find that the addition which was made by the Assessing Officer and deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was subject matter of challenge in appeal preferred by the Revenue the tax effect was Rs.....